|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Feb 21, 2012 9:30:48 GMT
We also played with one striker at the end of the 2009/10 season when we had a great run of results playing Rendell up front as a lone target man with Benyon playing off him almost as a classic 10 and the midfield pushing up to support when required. Rags, thats not exactly right is it  The excellent run of results towards the end of that season (including the 5-0 demolition of Rochdale) were achieved with Rendell and Benyon up front (classic "little and large" strike pairing) supported by Muzzy and Zebs as left and right wingers respectively with Wroe and Manse in the middle of midfield. It was pretty much a classic 4-4-2 in whatever book you wish to read (or for younger readers, console game you wish to play) and I suspect the pop side were able to recognise (and applaud) that. edit: Strange how the clean sheet record, which was trumpeted as such an achievement at the time, has slipped out of peoples memory. It adds weight to the opinion that runs during the season (like that one, and also the current one just ended) are merely transient footnotes in the history pages when it comes to the actual weighing up of what has been achieved at the end of a season  |
|
chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Feb 21, 2012 12:34:07 GMT
Thought it was four clean sheets (all winning 1 nil) coupled with three 2 - 1's?
Whatever formation we play we are still a striker short - horror of horrors, you may need to change formation to win. 
I just hope Lingy keeps hold of that lucky four leaf clover!Phil, I was referring to the 7 games from 5 April 2010 to 8 May 2010. Ah, those clean sheets |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Feb 21, 2012 14:38:12 GMT
We also played with one striker at the end of the 2009/10 season when we had a great run of results playing Rendell up front as a lone target man with Benyon playing off him almost as a classic 10 and the midfield pushing up to support when required.
Rags, thats not exactly right is it
The excellent run of results towards the end of that season (including the 5-0 demolition of Rochdale) were achieved with Rendell and Benyon up front (classic "little and large" strike pairing) supported by Muzzy and Zebs as left and right wingers respectively with Wroe and Manse in the middle of midfield. It was pretty much a classic 4-4-2 in whatever book you wish to read (or for younger readers, console game you wish to play) and I suspect the pop side were able to recognise (and applaud) that.Well, each to their own, and all that - but I happen to think it is right, and I've always thought that: I've seen Torquay play a 4-4-1-1 formation this season with O'Kane in the "withdrawn striker" (aka "back 1") role. I think he fits that position very well because he has the pace and imagination to move forward quickly when we are in possession, and the tenacity to press the opposing defence when they have the ball.
I felt we were playing a different style of 4-4-1-1 last season with Rendell playing the fulcrum role as the "front 1": holding the ball up for Benyon/Zebs/Carayol to scamper forward and support him but this season, when the 4-4-1-1 formation has been utilised, it is the "back 1" who plays the fulcrum role and moves the ball forward in a more mobile and (theoretically) fluid attack. and also: I suppose I looked at him as an out-and-out striker whereas, by the end of last season, we were using Rendell in a different role: more of a supporting striker (dare I say Emile Heskey role!?) who's job it is to hold the ball up for Benyon, Zebroski and/or Carayol to run on to. Now, I didn't see all those 7 games, but I remember that it was the second half v Rochdale particularly when I noticed Rendell playing a more advanced role with Benyon playing in a much deeper position, almost as a classic 10. Now, if anyone has the DVD and wants to look through it to prove me wrong, that's fine, but I am only repeating what I'm sure I saw at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Feb 21, 2012 16:14:24 GMT
Rags, just had a look at the highlights of Rochdale (nice watching it makes!!). Benyon and Rendell seem pretty much even in the "who's furtherest forward" stakes, if anything Benyon (due to his immediate pace) being the more forward of the two. I forgot he nearly had a hat-trick that game with a Dale defender managing to clear the ball mere inches before going over the line  Would you like me to email it to you (its about 18meg)? |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Feb 21, 2012 22:56:59 GMT
I hate to say it, Rags and DVN, but actually you are both wrong. Or can I put a more positive spin on it by saying you are both right? Rags is right in that it was more of a 4-4-1-1, or a 4-2-3-1 even, than an orthodox 4-4-2. DVN is right in saying that Benyon was not playing behind Rendell - it was the other way round. Rendell dropped deep into "the hole" or into the 3 in the 4-2-3-1, while Benyon led the line on his own. I've stuck below a post of mine from the time discussing Benyon's role. I do appreciate that miac's question was intended to be a rhetorical one, but there is no harm in answering a rhetorical question is there? Errr when did Benyon become "an acceptable league 2 standard striker then". Difficult to put a date on it - more a case of gradual evolution than a sudden change. One incident that really made me smile at the Rochdale match was when Benyon went shoulder to shoulder with a Rochdale centre-back near the halfway line and sent him sprawling and looking pitifully at the ref to no avail. How many times had I seen that played out the other way round? It has always been obvious that Benyon has something about him, but surely it is clear that he has developed into a different kind of player than he used to be. That may have "just happened" or it may be due to hard work and/or coaching. I'd give the bulk of the credit to Benyon himself, but I would imagine at least a little bit of credit lies elsewhere. I always thought that Benyon reminded me a bit of Jimmy Smith who obviously had something about him, scored pots of goals for the youths and the reserves, was a fringe player for a couple of seasons and went on to a good career in the Southern League. He was a goal poacher. It isn't long ago that I remember posting on here that I was surprised how we lined up with Benyon "up top" and Rendell deeper. I could not understand the manager's thinking (but did admit that he might actually have a reason rather than claiming that I knew better than he and he must be an idiot). To my mind, Benyon was too lightweight to lead the line. The only way he could ever operate was by playing off a big centre forward and Rendell could play that role. Although that seemed to me the obvious way round to play the two, it would mean having two strikers a long way up the field which would mean that the midfield two would either have to push up and leave a gap between them and the back four, or stay deep and be forced to play long to bridge the gap to the strikers. The change in Benyon has given us the chance to have a far more fluid and at the same time solid setup. Benyon has led the line superbly. Rendell has dropped into the hole, linking up play. The midfield two have looked solid. It wasn't the obvious way to go, but it has worked. Not doing the obvious thing risks more criticism than playing it safe and doing what everyone else would have done - you can only go against the grain if you have confidence in your own ability. |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Feb 22, 2012 7:04:58 GMT
I hate to say it, Rags and DVN, but actually you are both wrong. Or can I put a more positive spin on it by saying you are both right? Rags is right in that it was more of a 4-4-1-1, or a 4-2-3-1 even, than an orthodox 4-4-2. DVN is right in saying that Benyon was not playing behind Rendell - it was the other way round. Rendell dropped deep into "the hole" or into the 3 in the 4-2-3-1, while Benyon led the line on his own. Very interesting. I prefer the both right approach - it make you seem more generous with your praise. I have the highlights on DVD, thanks DvN, and unfortunately mine don't prove much as the first three goals were scored with play compressed into the Rochdale third and after that the need for a lone striker had gone. Could I suggest that the choice of who led the line was flexible depending on who we were playing? I recall us using it as a defensive formation with Rendell up front to take the out ball, and of course I also now remember Benyon being used in that same position for his ability to chase wayward "out balls". So we have two solutions, one where lumbering Scott Rendell is too slow to break quickly and is left up top on his own, the other with nippy Benyon being used to chase long balls and fight his way into the penalty area where he could lay balls off for Rendell/Muzzy/Zebs to run on to. Clearly the Rochdale game changed so quickly that there would be no need for my idealised "Rendell leading the line" idea so I am wrong about that. But it definitely happened at some point so I must be remembering a different game - maybe away? I'd ask Paul Buckle, but can we trust his answer to be the truth and not full of spin?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Feb 22, 2012 10:06:54 GMT
So we have two solutions, one where lumbering Scott Rendell is too slow to break quickly and is left up top on his own I think you're being a bit harsh on Scotty there Rags. I think his languid looking style of play belied his ability to make contact with the ball when it looked like he might be too far away from it. His ability to hold the ball till others were in good positions, and his distribution of it were excellent. We could do with someone like that now TBH. I thought him and Benners made an excellent pairing up front. They seemed to have a natural understanding in what was, lets face it, their "debut" season (as such) in the FL. I was particularly taken with their swapping around giving the defence something to readjust to, sometimes Benners would be further forward, sometimes Scotty would be. Other times, they would swap who was left and right. They were pretty much the epitome of a "little and large" pairing when you think about it and it certainly worked well most of the time ;D |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Feb 22, 2012 17:25:51 GMT
So we have two solutions, one where lumbering Scott Rendell is too slow to break quickly and is left up top on his own I think you're being a bit harsh on Scotty there Rags. I think his languid looking style of play belied his ability to make contact with the ball when it looked like he might be too far away from it. His ability to hold the ball till others were in good positions, and his distribution of it were excellent. We could do with someone like that now TBH. I thought him and Benners made an excellent pairing up front. They seemed to have a natural understanding in what was, lets face it, their "debut" season (as such) in the FL. I was particularly taken with their swapping around giving the defence something to readjust to, sometimes Benners would be further forward, sometimes Scotty would be. Other times, they would swap who was left and right. They were pretty much the epitome of a "little and large" pairing when you think about it and it certainly worked well most of the time ;D I really liked Rendell, I wish we could have kept him as I though he made a big difference to our team, in a similar way to how Gavin Tomlin did the following season. What could be called a "glue-guy" who helped all the disparate pieces form a cohesive team. I still think he looked lumbering but that was deceptive and, more importantly, speed wasn't the reason he was successful. Maybe languid is a better description than lumbering. |
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Feb 22, 2012 21:12:55 GMT
put a stop to this ridiculous "one forward" tactic. Winning games 1-0 or 2-1 with negative formations will always come unstuck in the end. Bloody hell - I said much the same to Barty but in jest! All winning runs will come unstuck in the end. In 113 years of playing 5, 4, 3 or 2 up front we have NEVER had as successful a run as we have just witnessed. Surely results prove that Ling's tactics have been anything but ridiculous. I suppose I asked for that with a rather illogical and naive statement. With the greatest respect, Jon, we don't all believe that results are all that matter. Personally, I find the current formation to be negative, cautious and boring. I can't see how a massing of players in midfield and one isolated player struggling to create a threat on goal can be good for the game in the long term. I am perfectly aware of how these tactics are supposed to work and give Mr Ling plenty of credit for what has been achieved this season with very limited resources. However, I don't like what I am seeing and surely I am entitled to say so. I just wonder how long it will be before some team sets a precedent by having no forwards at all, and explains that by claiming that the game is all about pace from the midfield ? |
|
